Thursday, October 31, 2024
Follow Us
UNHRC resolution sets stage for international jurisdiction of rights violations in SL

Amnesty International called the UN Resolution “landmark”, saying it marked a crucial turning point on justice and accountability in Sri Lanka.

The Government of Sri Lanka rejected the resolution out of hand and insisted its provisions could not be implemented without Colombo’s consent.

Overriding opposition from Russia, China and Pakistan, the 22 member states of the 47-member UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) voted to keep the international spotlight on Sri Lanka’s human rights record.

11 UNHRC member states voted to defeat the resolution, including Eritrea, Bangladesh, Cuba, Venezuela, and Bolivia.

14 countries abstained from voting on the Sri Lanka resolution, key among them was India whose vote was ambiguous until the final moments, and South Asian neighbour Nepal. Japan also continued its long-established practice of abstaining on Sri Lanka resolutions at the Council while pressing the Government to deliver on its post-war commitments.

Despite high-level lobbying efforts led by the President and the Prime Minister as the days were grinding down to the vote, Sri Lanka managed to secure only 11 votes in its favour to try and defeat the UNHRC resolution – the lowest degree of support it has mustered to defeat the effort in its history of engagement with the Council.

Apart from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Uzbekistan, nearly all remaining majority Muslim member states abstained from voting, including Bahrain and Indonesia. The lack of support from Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) member states might be an indication that the Government has paid heavily internationally for its mandatory cremation policy for COVID-19 dead and the proposed ban on the burqa – both moves seen as being discriminatory towards the country’s 2.5 million Muslims.

The resolution was co-sponsored by over 30 member states of the UN, including the US which engaged strongly on negotiations on the draft text over the past month.

“The important resolution on Sri Lanka just adopted at #HRC46 highlights continuing impunity for serious crimes and abuses and authorises collection of evidence for future prosecutions,” the US mission in Geneva tweeted soon after the vote.

For the first time in the history of the Council, member states made their decision known through an e-voting facility via Zoom. The 46th Session of the UNHRC has been an entirely virtual affair considering the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

The Government was counting on friendly nations to help to defeat the resolution with China and Pakistan calling for a vote in the Council.

The UNHRC Resolution 46/1 on Sri Lanka steps up monitoring of the island’s human rights situation by the High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet, requesting updates from her Office every six months until the resolution comes up for renewal in September 2022.

The key dynamic in the 2021 resolution however is the establishment of a central database at the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) where information and evidence of human rights abuses in Sri Lanka can be stored and analysed.

Amnesty International said the resolution was “significant” and signals a shift in the approach by the international community to Sri Lanka’s human rights situation. “Years of support and encouragement to Sri Lanka to pursue justice at the national level achieved nothing. This resolution should send a clear message to perpetrators of past and current crimes that they cannot continue to act with impunity,” said Amnesty International representative to the UN in Geneva Hilary Power.

The international mechanism will serve to support future trials Sri Lankan perpetrators accused of rights abuses in foreign countries and support victims of atrocities in their quest for justice.

A budgetary estimate provided to the Council by the OHCHR indicated that setting up the database would cost $ 2.8 million to set up over an 18-month period. OHCHR estimates it will require 12 personnel to staff the mechanism, including three legal advisors, two analysts, two investigators/human rights officers, one information and evidence officer, two juris-linguists, one victim support officer and one program assistant. The budget estimate also makes provision for a high-level human rights officer for enhanced monitoring to the human rights situation in Sri Lanka.

Daily FT learns that it will take the OHCHR a few months to make the mechanism operational. The project will be led by a high-level legal advisor and methodologies will be developed to analyse and preserve evidence. Strategies will also be designed for how the database will support trials internationally against those accused of violating human rights in Sri Lanka.

But activists are warning that the real test of the effectiveness of the resolution will rely largely on the commitment of UN member states to pursue justice against Sri Lankan perpetrators.

The Human Rights Council has no legally binding power over states and any tangible action, including targeted sanctions, asset freezes and travel bans against perpetrators of human rights abuses in Sri Lanka will depend on individual countries.

Analysts also raised questions about how the pursuit of justice internationally for crimes committed in Sri Lanka could impact politics in the country.

International Crisis Group Senior Consultant Alan Keenan tweeted that the OHCHR-led evidence mechanism the resolution will establish sets up a key dynamic to follow in the coming years. “To what extent do governments take up the challenge of accountability via extra-territorial jurisdiction and how does the quest for justice outside Sri Lanka affect political and conflict dynamics within?” Keenan tweeted.

Amnesty International also cautioned that the UNHRC resolution on Sri Lanka would require follow-up action by individual countries to create a real impact.

“While the resolution was an important first step, the real impact will rely on UN member states using it as a basis for concrete action, including investigations and prosecutions under universal jurisdiction and a possible referral to the International criminal court,” Amnesty International’s Hilary Power noted.

The Government lapsed swiftly into spin-doctoring mode on the UNHRC vote yesterday, with Foreign Minister Dinesh Gunewardena claiming Sri Lanka was “very happy” with the results.

“We welcome majority of 25 of 47 members in the council to have expressed not to vote against SL, amidst heavy lobbying and unsubstantiated statements. Sri Lanka will continue to work in international arena, along pledges we placed and domestic mechanisms in accordance with Sri Lanka’s constitution,” the Foreign Minister tweeted after his press briefing soon after the vote.

(FT)